Santos-Arrieta v. Hospital Del Maestro, Inc.
14f4th1
| 1st Cir. | 2021Background
- At trial Plaintiffs won a $4,948,968 verdict for injuries to their son G.Q.S., including $3,088,968 in future-care costs based on life‑care expert Dr. Richard Katz's $3,634,080 estimate. The Hospital was apportioned 70% of liability.
- Pretrial the court excluded Plaintiffs’ life‑care expert (Gerri Pennachio) because her cost estimates were tied to an autism diagnosis the court had ruled inadmissible as causation‑based damages. Plaintiffs did not appeal that exclusion.
- Plaintiffs sought to call the defense life‑care expert Dr. Katz; the court permitted it and later told the Hospital it would give a missing‑witness instruction if Katz were unavailable. The Hospital produced Katz, and after his testimony the court asked and the Hospital expressly declined to object to admission.
- After the verdict the Hospital moved under Rule 50(b) (JMOL) and Rule 59 (new trial), arguing lack of evidence of causation. The Rule 50(b) papers did not argue that Dr. Katz’s testimony was inadmissible or that future‑costs testimony was insufficient on its own.
- The district court sua sponte reexamined admissibility of Dr. Katz, concluded his testimony was inextricably tied to autism (excluded it), struck the $3,088,968 future‑costs award, and entered an amended judgment removing that portion; it denied a new trial.
- The First Circuit vacated the amended judgment and remanded: the district court erred by granting JMOL on a ground (exclusion of Katz) not raised in the pre‑verdict Rule 50(a) motion or the renewed Rule 50(b) motion and must address the Hospital’s Rule 59 motion regarding future costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may grant JMOL under Rule 50(b) on a ground not raised in its pre‑verdict Rule 50(a) motion | Plaintiffs: district court lacked authority to grant JMOL on a new, post‑verdict ground; Rule 50(b) is limited to issues raised in Rule 50(a) | Hospital: the admissibility issue was raised in its Rule 59 motion (or was preserved by Rule 50(a) sufficiency arguments) and the court could reconsider evidence post‑verdict | Held: Reversed — Rule 50(b) is limited to grounds raised in Rule 50(a); district court erred by granting JMOL on an issue not raised pre‑verdict or in the renewed motion |
| Whether the district court properly re‑weighed and excluded Dr. Katz’s testimony post‑verdict when Hospital had not objected at trial | Plaintiffs: exclusion was untimely and improperly raised sua sponte after trial; Hospital waived objections and failed to preserve the issue in its Rule 50 motions | Hospital: the court could reconsider admissibility when assessing sufficiency of the evidence and could treat Rule 59 arguments as adequate preservation | Held: Reversed — district court could not overturn the jury verdict by striking testimony on a ground not preserved in Rule 50(a)/(b); the admissibility issue should have been pursued (and preserved) as a Rule 50(a) or post‑verdict Rule 50(b) argument or via Rule 59, not raised sua sponte |
| Whether there was legally sufficient evidence of causation to support future‑costs damages | Plaintiffs: there was evidence (e.g., Dr. Crawford’s causation testimony) linking negligent care to brain damage and attendant needs budgeted by Katz | Hospital: evidence established only autism, not brain damage causally linked to defendants’ conduct, so damages lack evidentiary support | Held: Court did not disturb district court’s denial of the Hospital’s sufficiency challenge to liability; the error reversed was procedural (granting JMOL on an unraised admissibility ground). District court must address Rule 59 new‑trial request on future costs on remand |
| What remedy is required when JMOL is granted on an unraised ground | Plaintiffs: vacate amended judgment and remand for consideration of new‑trial motion (Rule 59) on future costs | Hospital: (sought entry of JMOL eliminating future costs) | Held: Vacated amended judgment; remanded for district court to consider whether to grant a new trial on future costs consistent with Rule 50(c) and Rule 59 procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Weisgram v. Marley Co., 528 U.S. 440 (U.S. 2000) (limits on district court revisiting evidentiary rulings in post‑verdict JMOL context discussed)
- RFF Family P'ship, LP v. Ross, 814 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 2016) (Rule 50(b) renewal limited to grounds articulated in Rule 50(a))
- Am. & Foreign Ins. Co. v. Bolt, 106 F.3d 155 (6th Cir. 1997) (district court may not sua sponte grant JMOL on issues not raised by parties)
- Doe v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 394 F.3d 891 (11th Cir. 2004) (district court lacks authority under Rule 50(b) to decide issues not raised by parties)
- Lawes v. CSA Architects & Eng'rs LLP, 963 F.3d 72 (1st Cir. 2020) (de novo review standard for district court's application of Rule 50)